- 12 -
Bell constitute deductible claims against the estate on account
of an agreement to make a will, (2) the value of an interest in a
certain residence included in the gross estate, and (3) the
deductibility of certain charitable bequests. Before proceeding
to those issues, we must address respondent’s claim that
petitioners are collaterally estopped from denying that the Bell
payments are gifts.
Petitioners bear the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a).
II. Collateral Estoppel
Following decedent's death, petitioners brought suit in
State court, in Ohio, against Bell, alleging that Bell had
committed acts of theft, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty
against decedent. Among other things, petitioners averred that
from July 1990 through October 1992, Bell wrongfully withdrew
approximately $59,080 from a checking account owned by decedent.
Bell prevailed in that suit. The State court found that she had
not violated a fiduciary duty to decedent with respect to
withdrawing money from his checking account. The State court
further found that the checks in question were gifts from
decedent to Bell. On the basis of those findings, respondent
argues that petitioners are collaterally estopped from claiming
that checks totaling $59,080 paid to Bell from decedent’s
checking account during 1990, 1991, and 1992 are other than
gifts.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011